Extraordinary ?

[ProVobis]

I personally and AS STRONGLY disagree that the OF can’t be as lovely as the EF. I went to the TLM and was unmoved. It’s a matter of subjective opinion. And if you’ve never been in the desert at sunset, or at night, or at sunrise, you’ve no idea of it’s beauty. The most moving mass I’ve attended was an “austere” offering of the OF in a monastic setting. Blew the TLM I atended right off the map.

I too have attended OF Masses that were more moving than all other Masses. But given any Sunday, I still prefer the EF and I’m no traditionalist.

By the way, use of the term “blow away” is somewhat disrespectful when a gift from God is involved. I truly hope for your sake that you weren’t fully aware of your implications.

 

[ProVobis]

It is an interesting read, which gives all the names of those involved and speaks of the Protestant observers and just that, observers.

From my experience, I’ve seen where simple “observers” can be influential.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I too have attended OF Masses that were more moving than all other Masses. But given any Sunday, I still prefer the EF and I’m no traditionalist.

By the way, use of the term “blow away” is somewhat disrespectful when a gift from God is involved. I truly hope for your sake that you weren’t fully aware of your implications.

You’re right, wasn’t the best choice of words. But given the invective heaped on the OF and the Church in these fora, I find it ironic that anyone here could come down with the pious flutters. Perhaps we should look to the beam in our own eye?

 

[CassiusLonginus]

I personally and AS STRONGLY disagree that the OF can’t be as lovely as the EF. I went to the TLM and was unmoved. It’s a matter of subjective opinion. And if you’ve never been in the desert at sunset, or at night, or at sunrise, you’ve no idea of it’s beauty. The most moving mass I’ve attended was an “austere” offering of the OF in a monastic setting. Blew the TLM I atended right off the map.

Actually, I live in the desert…4 years now, and I’m an outdoors type of person…so yeah, I’ve seen it.

So…You’ve been to the TLM once?

BTW, the number you quote only goes to demonstrate the difference between visceral response and informed response. You must be well over several thousands of years old.

Say what? Because I just hit the number buttons on my computer a bunch of times to demonstrate that I grew up with the NO and have been to 23059832409854 NO celebrations this is an uninformed and visceral response??? Suuuuuure buddy.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Actually, I live in the desert…4 years now, and I’m an outdoors type of person…so yeah, I’ve seen it.

So…You’ve been to the TLM once?

Say what? Because I just hit the number buttons on my computer a bunch of times to demonstrate that I grew up with the NO and have been to 23059832409854 NO celebrations this is an uninformed and visceral response??? Suuuuuure buddy.

Sorry, wasn’t sure where you were coming from with the number thing.

 

[Timothysis]

timothysis: it often appears that you have almost a hatred for the tridentine mass. ive read several of your answers in forums and you sound angry and bitter towards people who enjoy this mass and are happy to have it back because of our deep love for Catholic history and tradition. im curious why?

I challenge you to find one instance where I have shown a “hatred” for the Mass according to the Tridentine Missal.

I am not angry and certainly not bitter toward anyone who “enjoys” Mass celebrated this way, either. But I do get angry when I see a constant barrage of attacks against Mass celebrated according to the Missal of Pope Paul VI. There are many criticisms that one can make against the Tridentine missal but I have no interest in doing so. Why? Because, there is no constructive point. While we do know that the entire canon was totally recast in the two centuries before Pope Gregory the Great, we do not know who actually did the recasting. How would you guys feel if I said that freemasons and six protestant ministers had a hand in the recasting of the Tridentine canon? Yes, it is a ridiculous example but so is the notion that freemasons and six protestant ministers wrote the Eucharistic Prayers of Pope Paul VI’s missal. I defy anyone to show me what is not Catholic in Pope Paul’s Eucharistic Prayers. And yet, so many here do everything they can to denigrate the Ordinary Form, relying on falsities that have been exposed to them and yet they still persist in the “freemasons” and “six protestant ministers” lines.

I personally want the Extraordinary Form to be celebrated and expanded world over because it is one of the rich traditions of the Church. What I don’t understand is so many people’s attitudes that those who prefer the Ordinary Form aren’t *really *traditional Catholics. I’ve got news for you; there is no such thing as a “traditional” or “modern” Catholic, only “good” and “bad” Catholics.

 

[Timothysis]

Well, there’s no denying that except for the OF, all the liturgies of the Church are organic developments from the same event. The OF was literally created (in the manner of a Frankenstein monster) in the 1960s by a few people, and as such (an on-the-spot creation) it really does show itself to be categorically deficient compared to the TLM in all except the consecration.

I defy you to show me anything in the OF that is not Catholic.

People often say about the OF “well, it’s still a valid Mass and I still get the Eucharist”, and I just have to laugh because if that’s the best that somebody can say about a Mass, that it’s a valid form, basically says it all.

So, the sanctification of your soul by receiving the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is, to you, something to laugh at, since that’s "the best" that the OF can give you? What more, in heaven’s good name, do you want?

On the other hand, the TLM has been described as the most sublime thing this side of heaven. I happen to agree with that, and I imagine thousands upon thousands of saints throughout the years would agree. Padre Pio certainly agreed.

Not all TLM’s were celebrated in great churches and cathedrals over the past 1000 years or so or in a consistent, formulated way . I’m sure there were more than a few celebrations that would have made your skin crawl.

PS - your attempts at showing people “just how empty” their opinion of the NO is are likely to strengthen others’ resolves about avoiding it. From what you say to how you say it, your posts are not particularly conducive to winning people’s hearts or minds. Just sayin’.

Your constant attempts at disparaging the OF are probably not doing much to sell tickets to the EF, either. Why don’t you remove the plank from your own eye before working on mine? Just sayin’…

 

[Timothysis]

Head in the sand? Six heretics (you call them Protestants) formed a committee headed by Bugnini, and you say they said nothing over all the time they were rewritting Catholic liturgy? Or maybe there was no committee and all those pictures lie? Sorry, but the presence of the heretics is the truth.

Once again you propagate a known falsity as fact. The Congregation for Divine Worship stated that the six protestant observers had no hand in writing the liturgy. Is your conspiracy mentality so strong that you will disbelieve the word of the Church itself?

 

[Timothysis]

From my experience, I’ve seen where simple “observers” can be influential.

Really? Tell me, what part did you have in the Vatican II council?

 

[banished]

Hi all,

Sorry, but I had to be away for a couple of days. First, I would like to thank everyone who posted, because it’s important for me to get it right this time.

From what I just read during this thread, I assume that everyone agrees that it’s much safer for me to get started with the Extraordinary Form (Traditional Latin Mass)? I didn’t see a post that found something questionable in the EF, but quite a few questions came up about NO.

Did everyone agree that the “Gospel” mentioned (1 Peter 4:17) is in fact the Mass?

Also, the Traditional Latin Mass seems to be mentioned in (Revelation 3:10) to the Church in Philadeipha?

“Becasue you have kept my plea to stand fast, I will keep you safe in the time of trial which is coming on the whole world, to test all men of earth.” Catholic New American Bible

Richard

 

[JustaServant]

I personally and AS STRONGLY disagree that the OF can’t be as lovely as the EF. I went to the TLM and was unmoved. It’s a matter of subjective opinion. And if you’ve never been in the desert at sunset, or at night, or at sunrise, you’ve no idea of it’s beauty. The most moving mass I’ve attended was an “austere” offering of the OF in a monastic setting. Blew the TLM I atended right off the map.

I didn’t know as Catholics we could ‘critique’ a Mass. I thought it was all about the Eucharist, not ‘style’. Whether or not the ‘music’ was good, or whether the priest preached a great sermon are all Protestant (more evangelical) concepts.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I didn’t know as Catholics we could ‘critique’ a Mass. I thought it was all about the Eucharist, not ‘style’. Whether or not the ‘music’ was good, or whether the priest preached a great sermon are all Protestant (more evangelical) concepts.

You’ll find it happens a lot here…TO the OF. But your question is valid. We should be able to discern whether the Mass is being abused in the celebration of it, etc.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Hi all,

Sorry, but I had to be away for a couple of days. First, I would like to thank everyone who posted, because it’s important for me to get it right this time.

From what I just read during this thread, I assume that everyone agrees that it’s much safer for me to get started with the Extraordinary Form (Traditional Latin Mass)? I didn’t see a post that found something questionable in the EF, but quite a few questions came up about NO.

Did everyone agree that the “Gospel” mentioned (1 Peter 4:17) is in fact the Mass?

Also, the Traditional Latin Mass seems to be mentioned in (Revelation 3:10) to the Church in Philadeipha?

“Becasue you have kept my plea to stand fast, I will keep you safe in the time of trial which is coming on the whole world, to test all men of earth.” Catholic New American Bible

Richard

No, you are prooftexting like a Protestant. I don’t say that to be insulting, but the TLM is NOT in THIS context of Revelation. Read what the Church has to say about that book of the Bible.

ANY rite promulgated by the legitimate authority of the Vicar of Christ on Earth is SAFE! The rite is what clothes the Holy Sacrifice, it is not the Holy Sacrifice Itself, if correct form, matter, and intent are there.

 

[maurin]

No, you are prooftexting like a Protestant. I don’t say that to be insulting, but the TLM is NOT in THIS context of Revelation. Read what the Church has to say about that book of the Bible.

ANY rite promulgated by the legitimate authority of the Vicar of Christ on Earth is SAFE! The rite is what clothes the Holy Sacrifice, it is not the Holy Sacrifice Itself, if correct form, matter, and intent are there.

so…better safe than assured, right?

By the way, I do agree with your statement that ANY rite promulgated by the legitimate authority of the Vicar of Christ on Earth (sic) is SAFE! But just because the authority is legitimate, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the authority it exercises is morally legitimate. There has been more changes, it seems, to the NO Mass in the past 30 years than there were to the Mass of the Ages in the past 300. Although I could be wrong (something which I notice you don’t seem to deem possible for yourself!!! )

 

[banished]

No, you are prooftexting like a Protestant. I don’t say that to be insulting, but the TLM is NOT in THIS context of Revelation. Read what the Church has to say about that book of the Bible.

ANY rite promulgated by the legitimate authority of the Vicar of Christ on Earth is SAFE! The rite is what clothes the Holy Sacrifice, it is not the Holy Sacrifice Itself, if correct form, matter, and intent are there.

Ask yourself this question: “out of the 23 thousand verses in the Old Testament and 8,000 verses in the New Testament, why did the Holy Spirt reveal that tiny verse that is buried back in 1 Peter where no one reads?”

Richard

 

[DorianGregorian]

Ask yourself this question: “out of the 23 thousand verses in the Old Testament and 8,000 verses in the New Testament, why did the Holy Spirt reveal that tiny verse that is buried back in 1 Peter where no one reads?”

Richard

I’ll answer that with a verse.

Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. - Matthew 7:13

 

[banished]

I’ll answer that with a verse.

Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. - Matthew 7:13

Yes, “he that hath ears to hear; let him hear.” (Matthew 11:15)

Richard

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Ask yourself this question: “out of the 23 thousand verses in the Old Testament and 8,000 verses in the New Testament, why did the Holy Spirt reveal that tiny verse that is buried back in 1 Peter where no one reads?”

Richard

What? Who doesn’t read 1st Peter?

And the CHURCH is the guardian and sure interpreter of Holy Writ.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I’ll answer that with a verse.

Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. - Matthew 7:13

Could you clarify what you mean by this?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

so…better safe than assured, right?

By the way, I do agree with your statement that ANY rite promulgated by the legitimate authority of the Vicar of Christ on Earth (sic) is SAFE! But just because the authority is legitimate, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the authority it exercises is morally legitimate. There has been more changes, it seems, to the NO Mass in the past 30 years than there were to the Mass of the Ages in the past 300. Although I could be wrong (something which I notice you don’t seem to deem possible for yourself!!! )

I don’t know what you mean by the first question…we are both assured and safe in the rites of the Church.

There is nothing immoral about either rite.

And I’ve never said that I could not be wrong.

Are YOU saying that that verse in Revelation or the one in 1st Peter are speaking of the EF? If so, then I have to ask, by what authority do you assert this?